344 CHAELES MERCIEE: in the comparative power of the noxious agent correspond five groups of Antagonistic feelings. The inferior groups and individual feelings are marked off from one another by minor differences in the nature of the interaction : by the presence or absence of counteraction on the part of the organism, by the form which this counter- action takes, and by its success or failure ; each of these differences in the interaction between the organism and its environment being paralleled by a corresponding difference in the feeling aroused. The detailed classification of the Antagonistic feelings is given in the annexed Table. If the names of the feelings enumerated in the last column of this table are read in the order there given from above downward, it is at once evident that this is not the order of their affinity. The feelings of Terror and Fear which are so closely allied that they differ in degree only, are separated by feelings so widely different from either of them as Resig- nation, Desperation and Hope. Similarly the feelings of Revenge and Resentment, which have manifestly a close kinship are separated by feelings so alien from them as Patience and Suspicion. Stubbornness and Sulkiness are widely separated by the intervention of feelings so unlike them as those of Rage, Triumph, and Apprehension. It would be easy to bring these allied feelings together by shuffling the cards a little. If we transpose the second and third columns, and make the primary divisions according to the nature of the reaction and the secondary divisions according to the relative power of the agent, we bring together Terror and Fear, and follow them immediately by Hate, Annoyance and Contempt. Similarly, Resignation, Patience and Meekness would form a separate well-charac- terised group ; and other groups as natural would follow. But on the other hand by this arrangement Terror would be separated from Despair, Hate from Anger and Revenge, Annoyance from Vexation, and other closely allied feelings would have to be placed far asunder. From this it would appear that the classification here proposed is open to the same objection as those that I have rejected of grouping together things that are widely unlike, and separating widely those that are closely allied. If my aim were to arrange the feelings serially, this objection would of course be valid, and the classification futile ; but I have already declared that this is not my aim. So far from it, indeed, I hold that, as Mr. Spencer asserts of the arrangement of animal forms, " such relations cannot be represented in space of two dimensions [even] ; but only in space of three dimensions ". In a diagram such as that afforded by the table, the serial
